Saturday, July 27, 2013

In 2003 I was fortunate to be able to publish a detailed study titled "The Implant Motif in UFO Abduction Literature," in volume 8 (new series) of the Journal of UFO Studies.

One of the questions which I posed in this article was, when was the first case reported in the literature? I found that three cases vied for the title of the earliest published case. All three were published in 1979.

"The third case is a little-known Brazilian event, also first published in 1979 (Portuguese translation in Gevaerd & Stevens, 1987.) In this instance, during a May 2 1976, hypnotic regression session recalling an abduction, a woman (Dona Clelia T. R. ) responded to a question by replying 'I put a hand to my ear and he said no, that I would keep the device [inside] now; that I could not take it out by hand, that this was surgery.'" (Gevaerd & Stevens, 1987, p.143.)

Email:

Recently, I received an email from researcher Luis R Gonzalez, with some new information about Dona Clelia T. R.

Luis stated that the case was definitely not an implant one. The revised English translation of the particular questions are sourced from SBEDV Bulletin # 129-131, July-Dec 1979.

Question # 88 (DSL) "What is your impression?"

Answer # 88 (Clelia) "I think it is strange, because the pain has passed. I have put my hand to my ear and he replies that no, no, that I'm gonna have a little scar now. I should not have touched it, that it was surgery."

Question # 89. (DSL) "Surgery? What for?"

Answer # 89 (Clelia) "Because my eardrums have been ruptured. The pain was so strong."

Question # 90 (DSL) "And he gave you some stitches?"

Answer # 90 (Clelia) "The impression I had was that I had my eardrums blown apart, understood? when he spoke of surgery I ...he spoke of surgery and said..it is surgery but not like yours.

Question # 91 (DSL) "Maybe they did not know that such a noise could break your eardrums? It, they were blown up, weren't they?"

Answer # 91 (Clelia) "I do not know."

No implant:

Luis then writes to me:

"Thus, there was no "implant," just a small scar to be left because she had touched her ear, following surgery to repair her broken eardrum ( a somewhat extreme measure because usually eardrums repair themselves in a few weeks.) Surprisingly, (or not) the investigations apparently did not check if there were really was any scar (there should have been two of them...)"

Thursday, July 25, 2013

An interesting UAP file has just been digitised, at my request, by the National Archives of Australia. File series D174, control symbol SA5644/2/1, barcode 10663583, held by the Adelaide office titled "Unidentified Flying Objects," originated with the former Department of Supply (Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury.) It has a date range of 1966 to 1974.

There is so much material of interest, that I have decided to post a page by page description of the file.

Memo. 13
Dec 67. From a/g Supt American Projects Division to Asst Sec
Projects. To clarify if instructions contained in memo of 8 Aug 62 still in effect.
The 1962 memo stated that the US Embassy. “…had informally sought the
assistance of the Department of External Affairs in obtaining information
which might be used in the identification of space vehicle fragments…
Subsequently arrangements were madefor Woomera staff to report sightings in that area.” Reports outside
Woomera details are sent to Head Office for transmission through Dept of
External Affairs to the US Embassy as per memo of 8 Aug 62. Reports from WRE should go
to RAAF. Suggests changing to refer all reports to RAAF.

15

Minute 25
Nov 67. Brian Loggan (?) of HO. “Seems to have practically
nothing in his own files on UFOs and your fragments. I think that he will
need a fairly thorough briefing.”

Minute. From APD to S/APD. Reporting channels UFOs. Two
channels exist. (1) Sightings at the range. PO/Ranges to Supt/Trails to
DD/Trails to Regional Security Officer Adelaide to Chief Security Officer to
Dept of Air to ?(2) All other
sightings. Supt/APD to Supt/APD to Head Office to Dept of External Affairs to
US Embassy. Trying to delete input to US Embassy.

Minute. 18
Sep 67. To Director From Trials Wing HQ. Subject: UFO club at
Woomera. Reporting process. Also “I have noted that the activities of the
Woomera club have declined markedly in recent months…”

Memo. 4
Sep 67. To A Sec (Projects) from American Projects Division.
Subject: Identification of space vehicle fragments.Are the 1962 processes still needed?

30

Teleprinter 28 Aug 67. From ROCRAN to Director Weapons. “Authority
for rendition of reports is understood to have emanated from RSO Adelaide.
Information in this regard is being sought.”

31

Minute. 15
Aug 67. From ? to S/APD. Discussion on report on page 32. May
have been a “large home made rocket.”

32

Memo. 10
Aug 67. From RSO Adelaide
to Director WRE Salisbury. Attached copy of a report received by SA Police.

33-34

Memo. 9
Aug 67. From Det Sen Const Purdon to OIC Special Branch. Subject:
Report of Unidentified Flying Object falling from outer space. Report from
Senior Constable Seebohm of Karoonda re object seen 20 July 1967. 1537hrs. Due East travelling
South at 45 degree angle. “Silvery looking.” Blue/white trail. Travelling at
high speed. Also seen by two men at Karoonda.

35

Memo. 10
Aug 67. To Captain F E Irvine (RAN) Supt/Woomera from WRE Salisbury. Subject: UFO
club. “I am glad to hear that the “sighting report” to the STARS organisation
have been discontinued. There are obviously security dangers in permitting
unofficial reports of this kind.” Note that another system of reporting is in
place, please investigate.

36+37

Memo. 7
Aug 67. Top Director WRE Salisbury and WRE Woomera. From Supt.
Re: UFO club. STARS Scientific, Technical & Astronomical Research
Society. Sets out conditions under which STARS is officially allowed to
operate. STARS created its own report form but reports system is ordered to
be discontinued. “I consider that there is no need to feel that any security
risk exists at present.”

Memo. 16
Aug 1962. To Supt/Woomera from Controller WRE re ID of space
vehicle fragments. Letter received from Dept of External Affairs-US Embassy
informally seeking assistance in “…obtaining information which might be used
in the identification of space vehicle fragments.” Asks fro details of
sightings of “luminous objects” and “Observations of Impact(s) and/or
recovery of fragment(s).” Requests observations from members of staff.

41

Teleprinter 26 July 67. From Woods Director Weapons to DS/R&E
Supply Melbourne.
“Further to my W8476 about alleged UFO sightings. The sentence in my message
saying no films were exposed may be misleading. In fact the normal trial
kinetheodelite films were exposed during the trial. These should have shown
the UFO crossing the field of view close to Skylark but nothing was
recorded.”

42

Teleprinter. 25 July 67. From Woods Weapons to DSR&E Supply Melbourne. Re alleged
UFO sighting. “No, repeat, no films were exposed.” Reports came from kine
operators and “…did not correlate with each other except in time.” “Sightings
of wind carried webs are possible explanations.”

43-45

Memo. 21
July 67. To Supt Optical Instrumentation Division from WRE
Woomera. Subject: Identification of space vehicle fragments. Report from Yorke Peninsula. Female. 1730hrs Object falling SW to
NE. Surrounded in smoky haze. Fiery tail. Then went black, and saw what
looked like a rocket. Lost behind trees. Women searched area next day and
found “small heap of blackened material.” Was three years ago on a Saturday.

STARS report form. 28 Apr 67 1402hrs About 0.5-1secs K Simmons. Optical
tracker. “Object appeared round and white, as large as the Moon and passed to
the right of the Skylark at approx +55s in sequence, no elevations angle
noted-no further details.”

51-53

STARS report form. 27 Apr 67. 1402hrs 2 secs Position K8 L. Davis. Optical
instrument –tracking telescope. Skylark in sky. “Between +55s and 60s a dull
white object appeared high in the tracking telescope for approx 2 secs. Being
high in the telescope the object was distorted but appeared to be long and
wider in the centre than at the ends, the top piece being a slightly darker
shade.”

54-56

STARS report form.28 Apr 67. 1402hrs +60s. 2/5 secs. I J Davis Site 4. Watch
Skylark. Trial 23 A3. “85 degree el. The object appeared to be moving very
fast, was white in colour and saucer shaped sighted in FOV for approx 2/5
secs. Flying in roughly the opposite direction to the vehicle-object appeared
to be twice the size of the vehicle..”

Site 3. 28
Apr 67. 1402hrs. 6 mins. Optical-kine.“Object acquired at approx +1m30s in
sequence at 90 degrees elevation. Lost at +8m10s to+8m30s at an az of 220.2
and el of 7-10. Moved from 90 degrees el to 7/10 degrees el. And at 15
degrees el was at 220.2 az. Watching Skylark. “The object flashed past the
Skylark-was dull in colour. Dull round object with two (undecipherable) 2
small shot past and buzzing round elongated. Disappeared 8m10 to 8m30. Round
just moved out and others with it and went away 220.2az 15 degrees el when
lost 7-10 degrees.

File note 19
Jul 67. From D/D Trails to S/TRD “I wouldn’t give the operators
very high marks as observers.”

71

Memo. 17
July 67. To Supt Trials from PO/Ranges Alleged UFO sighting. 3-4
such sightings occur each year usually in lateautumn months. “The “objects” are almost
certainly wind-borne spider webs…The fact that attemptsto photograph these “objects” have always
been unsuccessful tend to support the theory that they are in fact extremely
tenuous body at no great distance from the observer.”

Harvey.
Asst Photog. Approx 1100 till 1200. 30 Jun 67. Tracked at K12. Operator V34 drew attention.
White objects. “No definite formation but most appeared to be within 10
degrees az of each other at times.” White. “Most were spherical while others
were appeared similar to meteorites.” Lost. “Mostly due size, distance and
haze.”

P Howard. Asst Photog. 1135hrs Fraction of a sec. Through
12x tracking scope of Congreves camera from site 6 K35. Travelling across
path of a Jindivik aircraft. Ap 40-45 degree el very fast. Northerly
direction gaining height. Went out of FOV. Clear blue sky. Object appeared to
be closer to K35 than Jindivik.

This is only the second time that this blog has featured a novel about UAP. The first was "UFOs in her eyes" by author Xiaolu Guo and set in China (click here to read the post.) Later in this post, I will reveal why I am mentioning this Australian novel.

John Meskell:
The novel is called "UFOs:Food for Thought" by Queenslander John Meskell. It was published in 2009 by Zeus Publications, Burleigh, Queensland. ISBN is 978-1-921674-24-5. Although it is a few years old now, I have never made the time to track down a copy and read it. However, I recently located a copy through my local library and rectified my omission.

The storyline:
Cecelia Patton and her daughter, Gail, encounter a UAP near Charleville, Queensland, and an abduction event ensues. A friend, Ted Skinner, also observes the UAP. Cecelia's husband, Bill, is a police officer and makes an official report about the incident.

Enter government investigator, Maxwell Carter, who is assigned to look into the incident. While in dialogue with his off-sider, Carter cites the details of such real life sightings as Boianai (1959); Bougainville Reef (1965); Tully (1966); a Townsville detective's sighting, and the Valentich disappearance (1978.)

Carter and his partner, Harold Barlow; Lieutenant Humphries, Military Intelligence, Australian Army, a RAAF representative, people from the CSIRO and three other Army staff go off to investigate the Patton's abduction.

Carter and Barlow then go on to investigate other cases, including one in Western Australia involving three men who appear to have been abducted. From there, the story develops. You will have to get a copy of the book to find out what unfolds from there.

John Meskell's UAP interests:
"UFOs: Food for Thought" is a work of fiction, but I would like to draw your attention to the author's interest in UAP. John Meskell was a central participant in the reporting of the 1965 Bougainville Reef aircraft encounter (click here and here for my posts on this intriguing event,) and the Townsville detective's story in the novel, is actually Meskell's own sighting. In addition, Meskell had another sighting in 1967 which he reported to the RAAF (click here.)

Back to the novel:

I enjoyed the novel, and suggest that it would be well worth your while to find a copy of the novel and read it for yourself.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The other day, via private email, one of the readers of this blog, asked a fair enough question. "Why are you bothering with old files?"

Who is aware?

My initial response was that many people are simply not aware of the contents of the RAAF, CSIRO, Met. Bureau, ASIO, the former Department of Civil Aviation, Army and Navy files on UAP, held in the National Archives of Australia (NAA.)

Some of these files were digitised by the NAA in the period between 2003-2008 during the Disclosure Australia Project. Others have been digitised (for a fee) following requests by myself. More recently, Melbourne researcher Paul Dean has spent money getting most of the remaining known files digitised. Once digitised the material on all these files (about a hundred now) are available for anyone to read. The more people who read these files, the more people there are to discuss and debate their value and meaning.

There are good reports:

Secondly, the files do contain some startlingly good UAP reports, which the RAAF etc. documented but never really analysed. Occasionally, when yet another file is digitised, some more interesting material comes to light.

Newer files:

Thirdly, the old files lead on to newer files. The Archives Act at the moment only allows us to reach back to 1984. I am currently seeking RAAF UAP files for the period 1984 to 1994. The latter date is when the RAAF rounded up all its UAP files from its various bases around the country, closed them off and deposited them into the National Archives. I have already secured copies of two of these files and have requested three more from the RAAF via the Freedom of Information Act. I will post on their contents in due course.

Education:

Fourthly, the current staff of the Department of Defence themselves, do not know the contents of their own UAP files. You may recall news media coverage a couple of years ago which stated that the DOD had "lost" its UAP files. At that time I sent the DOD FOI Unit a list of all the Australian government UAP files of which I was aware. Only by someone like me making the time to document the government holdings, can we assist educate current DOD staff about the topic. My reasoning here, is that the more they know on the subject, the more they can assist us with our enquiries.